Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support the Bill, as there is an awful lot in it to be commended. I would not agree with everything that the Liberal Democrats have said about access to more data, certainly not facial recognition, but I think that there are some steps in the right direction. Of course, the nature of a Second Reading is to highlight the things that you would have preferred to be in the Bill rather than things that are in it.

My first point is about what I feel is a missed opportunity to set out a strategic direction, partly for the criminal justice system and certainly for the police. We have not embedded anything about prevention as a strategic direction in the way that fire brigades have. We have not said much about police professionalism and how that might be developed. Finally, there is the use of technology, and how we set a strategic framework in which that will develop. That is a genuine missed opportunity.

Of the four areas that I want to highlight and which I shall push in Committee for recognition, the first concerns firearms officers. First, I acknowledge that the development around the anonymity of officers is welcome, although I confess that on occasion I have thought that actually they should be named, because accountability is very important. But this development is a good one, and I support it. This group of brave men and women, 3,500 of them, who protect 69 million of us, who are the only ones who can go forward on our behalf and deal with the people they have to deal with, are, I am afraid, not receiving a good deal at the moment.

This week, the officer who shot and killed Jermaine Baker in 2015 was told that he had no case to answer in a misconduct process—after 10 years. He was never at risk of a criminal charge, but 10 years later—that cannot be right. So there is something about timeliness there, but the law also ought to offer more generosity and sympathy to the officer in the first place. We do that for householders who protect themselves and kill someone in their home; they are in a unique group—so why does this unique group not have any similar protection? It is about having a higher bar before prosecution is considered, not immunity. No one is arguing for that—accountability is essential. But something must happen in that area, and as yet it has not.

My second area is cycling. I have tried to get some amendments into this Bill, because it is time that cyclists have more accountability too. Insurance would not be a bad idea, along with the opportunity to have points on their licence, if they have a driving licence, should they commit offences, and registration marks to identify them—and even licences for the people who ride bikes. The Public Bill Office tells me that it is out of scope, but I cannot understand that, because obviously there are measures on dangerous cycling that the Government have brought forward, which I support. But it will be no use having them if you cannot identify the person who did it—so I suggest that there is a possibility to consider future developments in this Bill.

My third point is around the suicide of police officers. The Police Federation is concerned that the number of police officers and staff committing suicide over the years is increasing, but it is having real difficulty getting hold of the data, either about those who have committed suicide or those who have attempted it. It recently had a survey in which only 41 forces replied; two of the biggest forces in the country, including the biggest, did not reply, so the federation is struggling to get hold of the data. It would like to see a legal duty to ensure that the data is collected, first, and then if there is a problem how big it is and where the themes are that might enable more prevention to take place.

My final point is about the indirect consequences in terms of historical offensive weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has done some work on this, but there is more to do to make sure that those who have historical weapons are not captured under the offensive weapon debate. The couriers who carry these things are now withdrawing from the market, meaning that very few people are carrying weapons or things such as scissors—and that means that we will have a real problem soon if we do not consider that indirect impact.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

211: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Defence of historical importanceAfter section 141(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons), insert—“(7B) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of that person relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),to show that the weapon in question is one of historical importance.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies a similar historical importance defence to that introduced by item (sa) (Zombie Style Knives and Machetes) and item (u) (Ninja Swords) of Section 141 CJA 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. If the owner of a historic weapon can satisfy defence 7A (Ownership in private), then there is no good reason preventing them passing the item on to the next custodian in a similar manner to an item which is antique (100 years).

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 211, 212, 213 and 214 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support in these amendments.

This area is about producing consistency and fairness. I would not like anyone to be confused about thinking that I wanted to be more liberal—not Liberal Democrat, but liberal—about knife crime. It is about producing consistency for people who possess knives with innocent intent. Generally speaking, I welcome the update of the penalties associated with offensive weapons under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in line with more modern regulation. I suggest that, as well as reviewing the penalties, it is appropriate for us now to review the defences as set out in my Amendments 211 to 214.

The last two pieces of legislation on zombie knives and ninja swords have included a range of defences, such as historical importance, being a blunt weapon or skilled handmade items, in addition to existing global defences of religious ceremony, Crown and visiting forces, antique theatrical and media productions, museums —when the public have access—and ownership for educational purposes. In the new legislation, items such as zombie-style knives, machetes and ninja swords have the defence of historical importance, which applies to sale, gift, loan and importation. In my view, there is no good reason for that not to apply as a defence in a consistent global manner to the other 20 items in that schedule.

For example, if the family of a World War II veteran or a collector can prove that the item they own in private is historically important, it allows them to own it legally, so there is no good reason to prevent them passing it on to the next custodian. The defence relates to the nature of the item, not the person who owns it. We should feel confident that, in doing this, it will follow what happened in 2018, when many thousands of historical weapons from the trenches of World War I dropped out of the scope of the legislation because they became antiques. That was not accompanied by a surge in crime involving these knives. Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime; they are far too expensive for that, and, with the public interest in the end of World War I, the only surge seen was a rise not in crime but in the auction prices they realised because they became antiques and were, therefore, more valuable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Maybe this should be called the “afternoon of the long knives”.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for explaining the intention behind them.

We can see the merit in Amendments 211, 212 and 214, but making changes like this would first require thorough consultation with the police and officers. Obviously, we are very privileged to have the testimony and experience of—I am not sure whether “brace” is the right collective noun for two former commissioners—the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked on how you learn something new every day: indeed, I had no idea that truncheons have so many uses or non-uses. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposite for explaining the ingenious uses that he put his truncheon to from time to time.

While I am referring to comments from noble Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Hacking that his issue depends on the question, “How long is your dirk?” I am not sure whether that is something I would want to say at any point in time, let alone at the Dispatch Box, but there we are.

More seriously, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the rest of the Committee that the Government will consider further the issues raised in the discussion that we have had on this group of amendments. In doing so, we will ensure that any changes to the existing defences and exemptions are made after thorough consideration of the impacts. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they all deserve serious thought and thorough consultation. Although I am not suggesting for a minute that anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested otherwise, we must place the safety of the public in a paramount position. As such, I cannot undertake to bring forward any proposals in time for later stages of the Bill. However, I stress that, in any event, it would be possible to give effect to the sort of proposals that the amendments intend through existing regulation-making powers. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, therefore, would need to be debated in and approved by both the House of Lords and the other place.

Amendment 213, on items used for agriculture, gardening or similar purposes, was tabled by noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and discussed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Goschen. We believe the legislation is clear that it targets curved swords, and, if that is contested, it is ultimately for the courts to decide. We will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that police officers have access to appropriate guidance. I am sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and other noble Lords, and the proposed amendments require further consideration and consultation.

Regarding Amendment 214—indeed, all the amendments—I stress that it is at the discretion of the police, the CPS and ultimately the courts to decide to take action against those holding weapons or items on the Schedule’s list for legitimate historical reasons, or indeed those using them for legitimate cultural sets of reasons. It is at the discretion of the police and the courts in taking a case forward. But I equally stress that we have existing powers to change the relevant law through secondary legislation. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister for both the tone and the content of his response. I agree with him entirely that the main purpose is to keep people safe, and I would never want to do anything to compromise that in any way. One reason for the amendments is that sometimes, the discretion of the police and the prosecution services that he urged has not always been exercised in a way that businesses and collectors have felt is appropriate. This has probably left them to manage that risk themselves. They are not trying to break the law, but they sometimes feel they are at risk of doing so. With all that said, I am reassured by the fact that the Government may be able to consider secondary legislation appropriate. That may be the best way to deal with this. I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 211 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lord Lucas a very speedy recovery from his operation. I also thank the Minister and the Home Office for in part adopting my Private Member’s Bill, with which the Minister is very familiar, but they do not go far enough. That is why I have taken the opportunity to table Amendments 341, 343 and 344.

I have asked for a separate debate on Clause 106, because a number of us have had long discussions with the excellent clerks in the Public Bill Office. Although there is a clause in my Private Member’s Bill that relates to insurance—I put on record the concerns of the insurance industry, not least the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, about the lack of insurance provisions in this Bill—I am told that it is not in order to put it in this Bill. I will raise those issues when we discuss Clause 106 standing part.

My Private Member’s Bill is my third attempt at such a Bill. The first attempt was during Covid, when we had no Private Members’ Bills because we were quite rightly busy passing all the regulations for processing Covid at every level. Then another year was missed, but my current Private Member’s Bill still remains on the Order Paper. I still hope that it will be adopted in full before the end of this parliamentary Session.

The genesis of my Private Member’s Bill was the very sad case, with which I am sure the Minister and the Home Office are familiar, of Kim Briggs, who was mown down on a public road by a bike that was completely illegal. It did not have brakes that failed; there were no brakes fitted to it at all. It was designed to be used exclusively on the velodrome for speed trials. Poor Kim Briggs stood no chance at all: she was mown down and killed. I realised when I met Matt Briggs, Kim’s widower, that current laws do not treat road traffic offences the same way as any other incident caused by other motoring offences. That is completely wrong.

A bicycle is not a vehicle, but it can have devastating consequences, as in the case of the death of Kim Briggs and several others. E-bikes, as we have heard, are heavier and go faster. Then, of course, we have e-scooters, which are, in fact, vehicles and are meant to be completely illegal.

My Amendment 343 is taken straight from my Private Member’s Bill. We were promised that there were going to be trials for a period of time—there were going to be pilot schemes to use e-bikes on a rented basis in a number of cities. These trials have gone on and on for ever, and during that time there have been at least six, 10 or a dozen deaths and a number of injuries caused by the misuse of these electric scooters. They are used as delivery vehicles and are used by criminals to steal smartphones and other items—handbags and all sorts—particularly at this time of year.

I would like to understand why—I hope the Minister will agree to do this in summing up this debate—we cannot bring those trials and the pilot schemes to an end, report to both Houses and bring in appropriate legislation. It is meant to be completely illegal to ride—to drive, in fact—an e-scooter in a public place. You are allowed to own them and operate them on private land, which normally means a car park or some other part of your estate. The gist of the amendment is to ensure that the Government will assess whether it is appropriate to legalise the use of privately owned electric scooters in public places in order to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance. That is where I wish the Government to go.

The cost to the country and to all of us who drive a vehicle is horrendous. It runs into millions every year because there is no means of registering or insuring these e-bikes or, indeed, e-scooters, as I have mentioned. So that is the general thrust of my Amendment 343: to bring these pilots to a halt and, if there is a case for e-scooters to remain, making them legal, whether rented or privately owned, to ensure that they are safe and registered and can be insured. I think that would be a great step forward and much safer indeed.

Amendment 344 asks simply that there should be an annual report on cycling offences. I was almost mown down by a very fast-moving—I have to say younger—woman coming at me at speed on a pavement. Now, unless I am mistaken, it is currently illegal, it is against the Highway Code, to cycle or use an e-scooter or an e-bike on a pavement, but these cyclists are doing so with alacrity. Fortunately, I managed to hop out the way, even with my advanced years. I noticed that there was a police van, and I asked the police whether they had witnessed this incident. They assured me that they had witnessed the incident, but they told me there is a policy of no pursuit of any person who commits road traffic offences, whether in the Highway Code or earlier road traffic offences. The question I would like to ask the Minister and the Committee today is: what are we doing here passing new provisions if the current provisions are simply being flouted and ignored, giving free licence to people who want to ride an e-bike, an e-scooter or a pedal bike on the pavement when it is illegal to do so? I would welcome an answer to that question.

As far as my Private Member’s Bill goes, I am delighted that Clauses 1 and 2 are more or less incorporated in Clause 106 in full, so a big thank you to the Minister for doing that. With Clause 2, I would like to understand why it was considered appropriate to remove the reference to Section 28 of an earlier Act in the earlier subsections of Clause 106.

Amendment 341 would prefer 14 years as an offence for causing death or injury in those circumstances, which is the tariff for other road traffic accidents of that severity. I think that is the intention of the Government, not imprisonment for life. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the amendments and my remarks. It is entirely inappropriate that we have laws in existence which are simply being flouted and that the pilot scheme and trials for e-scooters have not been brought to a halt. In tribute to those who died, such as the late Kim Briggs, more needs to be done to ensure that these very serious road traffic offences are finally recognised for their gravity, whether caused by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and whether resulting in death or serious injury. There should be compulsory insurance and therefore registration going forward.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I will speak to my Amendments 341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for adding their names to some of those amendments.

In 2015, 444 pedestrians were injured by cyclists. In 2024, this had increased to 603. Of those, the number of seriously injured rose from 97 to 181, and 25 of the casualties died. These numbers are based on police reporting, so it is clear that they are a minimum. They do not include incidents where the police did not attend a collision or incidents where pedestrians either did not need immediate medical treatment or later attended their GP or a hospital setting without telling the police.

Every day, particularly in our large towns and cities such as London, we see cyclists ignoring traffic regulations and putting people at risk, particularly pedestrians who have a disability or a lack of mobility, even when those same people are using pedestrian crossings. At night many cyclists are not displaying lights, wear dark clothing and ride dark cycles, and pedestrians and other road users just cannot see them.

I do not believe that cyclists are a group of people who are more criminal than the rest of society or than any other road users. However, they are less accountable than people who drive buses and cars, and general deterrence theory does not work for them. General deterrence theory claims that the risk of detection is the most effective deterrent to crime. Drivers of motor cars, lorries and buses know that there is a good chance that their behaviour will be noticed and probably investigated because they will be identified.

This identification process has allowed major strategic road safety measures to take effect. First, the licensing of drivers has allowed drivers to be prohibited from driving by the suspension of their licence. The introduction of automated cameras monitoring traffic speed and regulation has produced mass enforcement at dangerous locations to enhance police enforcement, which had proved inadequate, given the rise in the number of vehicles on the road and the miles of roads available. But these two measures are not available against cyclists. They have no licence or registration mark. This means that not only does the technology not work against them, but they cannot be identified for other road users, and they have no identification mark to offer for an investigator to identify them after they have behaved badly.

My amendments are all designed to remedy that situation. The Government usually respond to my proposals in a few predictable ways. First, they say that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the regulatory costs. I propose that at least 603 people in 2024 would not agree. How can the blatant disregard of our laws, intended to keep us safe, be allowed for cyclists, and why does their right to a healthy life trump the rights of pedestrians to feel safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

They are classed as motor vehicles for the purposes of the legislation if they can travel above 15.5 miles per hour; but they are not, self-evidently, for the reasons I have already outlined, subject to the licensing arrangements that we have to date.

Mandatory uplifts based on specific vehicle type would be a novel but also an inconsistent approach to sentencing. Sentencing should always reflect the facts of the case and the level of culpability. Introducing rigid statutory additions could undermine the principle of proportionality, create inconsistency and risk setting an undesirable precedent. On the noble Lord’s amendments on changing the “careless and inconsiderate” cycling definition, I understand his desire to put beyond doubt that cycling on a pavement or in an area intended only for pedestrians should be considered as cycling without due care and attention. However, cycling on pavements is already an offence in its own right, as set out in Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is an awfully long time ago and has stood the test of time. It is also an offence under Section 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Given that these offences are still in place, I would suggest that, along with those in the Bill for serious offences, that provides a sufficient deterrent.

Amendment 337F would insert the definition of a cycle. Again, I come back to Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which already defines cycles, and this definition includes compliant electrically assisted pedal cycles. As I said earlier, an e-bike that does not comply with the relevant legislation is a motor vehicle for the purposes of the legislation, not a cycle.

I turn to a series of amendments—341A to 341D, 342A to 342F, 346A, 346B and 498A—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which propose that a person could receive up to 12 points on their driving licence upon conviction of any of the offences in Clause 106. Reaching 12 points on their driving licence would, of course, disqualify them from driving a motor vehicle.

As I have mentioned already, cyclists do not require any form of licence to cycle, therefore the noble Lord proposes points on a driving licence as an alternative penalty. In the Sentencing Bill, which is currently before your Lordships’ House, there is already a new driving prohibition requirement that the court can impose when giving a community or suspended sentence order. This prohibition will allow a court to take a more flexible and tailored approach to punishment than a driving disqualification, and it will be available irrespective of the offence that has been committed. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that the provision in the Sentencing Bill goes some way towards meeting his objective.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 346A and 498A seek to create a registration scheme for the purposes of enforcing the new offences in Clause 106—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, on the point about the prohibition that might come from the Sentencing Bill, is the danger that unless the sentencing guidelines shift to reflect that new piece of legislation, you will end up with a very inconsistent approach in at least 43 police force areas as applied by the magistrates in those areas? If it is just a random event, they might lose their driving licence because of anti-social behaviour, some of which might be on a cycle. I understand the principal point that the Minister makes but I am not convinced that it will lead to a radical change in the way that cyclists are called to account through their driving licence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is ultimately for the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for the Sentencing Bill, to look at sentencing guideline issues later. I cannot give assurances on those points today. However, the Sentencing Bill is currently before this House and it is trying to look at those issues as a whole. When it is law, my noble friend Lady Levitt and others will look at guidelines and those potential enforcement issues as a matter of some urgency. The Sentencing Bill proposes, in some way, one of the issues that the noble Lord seeks to achieve.

Again, self-evidently, a registration scheme for cycles would make enforcement of offences easier. The absence of a registration scheme does not make enforcement impossible. As the noble Lord will know, the police would be expected to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry that are open to them by examining other evidence before them at the time of any potential incident.

As with the example of licensing for cyclists that I referred to earlier, the House must accept that the likely significant cost and complexity of introducing a registration scheme for cyclists would mean, for example—this was mentioned in one of the contributions today—that all cycle owners, including children and those making new purchases, would have to submit their information to a central database. That central database would be required to keep the information and the ownership up to date, and some form of registration plate would need to be affixed to a cycle. To give the noble Lord one statistic, the Bicycle Association has estimated that nearly 1.5 million new cycles were sold in 2024. That is a big undertaking. I know that the noble Lord understands that, but the enforceability of the existing legislation is the key, and the work that we are doing, which I have opened my remarks with, would be key to that and would counterbalance the potential cost to the public purse of establishing the registration scheme.

Amendment 346B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seeks for e-bikes, which are currently faster and more powerful, to be treated as motorbikes or mopeds for policing purposes. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 mean that e-bikes which do not comply with existing regulations will be treated as motor vehicles for policing purposes. The Department for Transport, which has overall responsibility for these areas, has published fact sheets explaining that e-bikes which do not comply with regulations will be treated as motor vehicles.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has tabled Amendments 341, 343 and 344, which seek to reduce the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from life imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment. We have taken the view—I am pleased with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on this—that the offences in the Bill bring into line this behaviour so that it is subject to maximum penalties equivalent to those already in place for dangerous driving offences, which is life imprisonment.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 481 seeks to address the specific part that delivery services play in broader criminal activity. Delivery riders make regular deliveries to residential accommodation, which often houses vulnerable people. The identity of these riders is unknown, because they wear masks and helmets. Despite the anonymity of these riders, they can wander around inside these residential accommodations with impunity, especially because the outside door of these flats is often controlled remotely. Some of the elevators actually open into private apartments.

As has been mentioned already, a vulnerable 80 year- old lady opened the door of her flat from the lift and was confronted by one of these helmeted, masked foreigners. When she tried to shut the door, he prevented her shutting the door by putting his foot across the threshold into her apartment. You can imagine how frightened she was. Besides the fear that these riders can stoke, they can also commit crimes within the building. Some of them have put graffiti all over the place, so there is a real problem here.

Another thing we have to bear in mind is that these people are often involved in human trafficking and can be in the country illegally, as has been mentioned. This month, 171 illegal delivery riders have been arrested. My amendment is the first step in addressing all this criminal behaviour. It would enable an accurate diagnosis of the problem, the impact of which is particularly felt by the most vulnerable in our society.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support all three amendments, particularly the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. I have tabled amendments with general concerns about cyclists putting pedestrians at risk. The Government did not accept those. These amendments are different. It is no coincidence that the three people who tabled them have physical challenges that they overcome every day. Although as pedestrians we all face challenges with cyclists, if you cannot get out of the way, cannot see them coming and will sustain more grievous injuries should you be hit, that group in society is even more vulnerable. We should listen carefully to the case that they have made.

This Government and even the Lib Dems are a little complacent about responding to the general point about cyclists being held to account. There is almost a patting on the head: “There are not that many people dying or getting injured compared with those being hit by cars”. Well, 25 people have been killed by cyclists over the last 10 years, and it mattered to those families. It should matter to the Government to take some action.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, merely asks for a review to gather evidence, particularly in the narrow area of commercial operations that employ cyclists, rather than just general cycling. The link between the cyclist and the employer has got more vicarious. Many of them are on zero-hour contracts and provide the cycles themselves. They do not always visit the operating centres of their employer. The employer says, “We didn’t buy the bikes; we don’t see the bikes. What has what they do when they are working for us got to do with us?”

I was out a few days ago with the City of London Police and saw that these people clearly are operating on behalf of a commercial company. There is a vicarious liability for the employer, but in no way is that link being established at the moment. The employers or companies could look at the data on the bikes. They could establish how often they were being operated. Sometimes this is beyond normal employment practice. They could establish which streets they went on. Many of them are going the wrong way down certain streets, which would be clear if they were to look at the data.

At the very least, this review might want to consider that an employer could do more positive things than just employ sanctions. They could start to educate their cyclists and reward them for better behaviour. Many employers of HGV drivers and bus drivers have schemes advertised on the rear of the vehicles: “If you don’t like how our driver is driving, please let us know”. They could do that for cyclists. You might say, “There’s no registration plate”. I argue for a registration plate. If you do not like that idea, they could have highlighters with details on the back advertising which company they were employed by and who you might report it to if you were not happy with the driving of that cycle. You are then starting to bear down on some of the accountability, which would gradually improve road safety. I am sure the Government are not blind to the problem, but people are worried about the amount of bureaucracy that would be needed and are frightened of having to establish it. I understand the administrative burden, but it is important to make incremental steps to start to have some impact in this important area.

At the very least, this review could establish some data on which we could all debate. It is insufficient for anecdotes to drive policy, but the anecdotes are so frequent and obvious that there is underpinning data that is not being collected. A review such as this would collect data, inform policy and make sure that any proposed changes were reasonable and likely to have some effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. In previous Bills, the Department for Transport has made exactly the point that he is making, which is that a strategy is coming. It was due in the summer of this year, we are now at Christmas and there is no date, so I am not reassured by that general point.

I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we are struggling to find evidence of the problem that we are all talking about, because you only have to walk outside. Our newspapers and broadcasters are carrying out surveys showing what we all know to be true—not to blame cyclists for everything in the world, but there is clear evidence it is happening, so I am surprised he said that.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister would like to look into the health data. We have talked only about the police data. The health data is completely different. When people go to A&E, their GP et cetera for injuries caused by cyclists, it is not recorded in the same way as it is by the police. We have two sets of data which we are not bringing together; we only ever talk about the data collected by the police. I was surprised to hear the Minister say they could not find the data.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, I was talking about evidence of causality rather than necessarily data on incidents. Let me make some progress, and maybe the noble Lord will be a little mollified by the time I get to the end of my contribution—or maybe not.

The fundamental purpose of the new offence is to—

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 366 and 538, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and introduced so cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I thank her for the reference to my honourable friend Martin Wrigley, who helped to identify this particular issue, which addresses the growing problem of mobile phone and device theft, often fuelled by the profitability of reselling these stolen goods overseas.

We are currently facing an epidemic of mobile phone theft, as the noble Baroness said, with reports indicating that phone snatches have increased by as much as 150% in certain areas. Every single day, approximately 200 mobile phones are stolen across the country, with many being destined for a lucrative resale market abroad. These stolen devices remain valuable criminal assets, because, currently, they often can still be accessed or resold even after being reported.

We support Amendment 366 because it seeks to strike at the heart of this criminal profit model. The amendment would ensure that technology companies actively employ technical measures, specifically cloud-based blocking and IMEI-linked device locks, as the noble Baroness described, to deter the resale of stolen mobile phone devices. Without compulsory co-operation from cloud service providers and manufacturers, stolen data and devices will remain valuable criminal assets, even if the physical device is recovered. This is an essential step towards forcing technical solutions from technology companies to counter the incentives for theft.

Amendment 538 would provide the industry with a necessary and reasonable lead-in period, specifying that these cloud service access restrictions will come into force six months after the Act is passed. This would ensure that technology companies have the time required to implement the necessary technical standards and administrative processes.

For too long, the manufacturers and cloud providers have treated device theft as a secondary concern. It is time that they work in a much more customer-friendly manner, in the way that the noble Baroness described, and use their immense technical capabilities to simply turn these devices into mute bricks the moment they are stolen, thereby removing the incentive for the crime altogether. I very much hope that the Minister will accept these common-sense measures to protect our property and safety.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I may cover some of the same ground—I was only grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, intervened, because people might have forgotten some of the points made, but if I amplify them too much I am sure that somebody will remind me. I was particularly keen to support the amendment because, in the past, I have criticised the police for a lack of enforcement and detection—but of course, they cannot do everything.

We know that organised crime, which I will come to later, is about money; it is just another form of business. Theft is driven by people trying to make a profit. The amendment is all about the commercial business of mobile phone sales—some of it legal but some of it criminal. Apparently, there are about 88 million mobile phones in this country. They can be about £1,000 each, so that is a market of about £88 billion or something of that order. It is a massive market. In 2023, the purchase of these devices totalled £5.8 billion, and there is another £2.5 billion-worth of services that they provide and that we all pay for, from data to the general use of a mobile phone. This, by any measure, is a massive business.

The value of the phones stolen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, was about £20 million, with a reinsurance value of £50 million. The number of phones stolen in the UK is about 120,000, with two-thirds of this happening in London. It is a big city, and there are an awful lot of targets for the criminals wandering about. As they leave the Tube, people take their phone out to get a signal, as we all want, and to check on the messages they have not received while they were on the Tube. That is where the criminals spot them, and they then follow them to a place where they relieve them of their phone. I suspect that is one reason why we see so much of this in London. Clearly, the business model works very well here.

These are the crimes that are reported. An awful lot of phones that are stolen are never reported. I have talked to people in this place who have not reported their phone as stolen because there has been a level of embarrassment about the fact that it has happened to them on the street—they have just got another phone. We only know about the bare minimum of the number of phones that have been stolen in the course of a year.

On many occasions, violence is used. Just the ripping of a phone from a hand can lead to somebody trying to hold on to it, and we never know where that contest might end. If somebody ends up on the floor, violence can follow and the physical consequences can be quite severe.

As far as the mobile phone industry is concerned, £20 million is a very small number compared to an £88 billion market. More importantly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, pointed out, the industry benefits, because when you have your phone stolen you go back to get another one. So why would it stop this? There is no financial incentive to actually do anything about it. There might be a moral one, but I am afraid it looks as though the moral incentive is not having an awful lot of effect. Of course, none of the manufacturers or the networks tries to lead in the market by saying that if their phone is stolen then it cannot be used. There is no market incentive for one manufacturer to say that its phone is better because it cannot be stolen, or, alternatively, that if it is stolen then it has no value. There is no effect on the market that is helping to prevent the theft of phones.

It is all to do with organised crime. There are some fancy definitions—one or two people in the Chamber may know of them—of organised crime and what is it all about. It is about money. It is about being organised enough to steal things in such a volume and have somebody to buy them which means that they have been worth stealing in the first place. The market they are involved in is enforced by violence. There is no monopolies commission supervision of this market, whether it be drugs or mobile phones; it is enforced by violence to ensure that they succeed and that other people fail. It is therefore really important that we get this right.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, the resale value of a mobile phone that has been stolen is about £300 to £400. The thief does not get £300 to £400, but, by the time it has gone through a few hands, that is the return that they are expecting. To pay everybody out, they need to get £300 to £400 to make sure that it works.

The problem is that 78% of the phones that are stolen are going abroad, as has been said, and we cannot seem to stop them at the border. This is not entirely surprising. Phones are very small items and some 90% of the world’s goods travel by sea, in containers. Without intelligence, the chance of finding mobile phones is very limited. Therefore, we are not able to physically stop the phones leaving the country and going to places such as Algeria and China. At the moment, the police are fighting a losing battle to catch the thieves, who are low down the organised crime chain, and trying to prevent the export of stolen phones. As I said, given the size of a phone, that is quite difficult: they are looking for a very small needle in a very large haystack.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope nobody in the Committee takes away from this debate that the Government are not serious about tackling this issue. I leave with the Committee that the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, could create a number of technical problems that need to be thought through in a much more constructive way and should not be accepted today. That is not to say that there are not solutions there; on his return, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, may wish to renew this debate on Report. However, for the moment, there is a serious attempt by the Government to tackle this issue. We are bringing together partners and trying to secure initiatives. We want to look at the issues of designing out in the longer term, but if I accepted this amendment today there would be a host of potential spin-offs that would be consequential to it.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I acknowledge that the Minister is trying hard to give a positive response, but I wonder whether he wants to challenge the reasons being offered when he goes back to the Home Office.

For most of these mobile phones, if the thieves have any sense they will turn them off, because the risk of being tracked is not insignificant, although clearly they do not always. That could be managed in two ways. First, there could be a time limit before the phone is blocked, such as 48 hours—the owner will not be looking for this phone for the next six years. Secondly, and probably more importantly, this is a bit Catch-22; if we argue, as I think the Government accept, that it is valuable because it can still connect to the network, once the thief knows it will not be connected to the network there will be no need to track it when it is stolen, because nobody will be stealing it. I know this will not be perfect, but if you could reduce it by 90%, that would have a massive impact.

I accept that the point on tracking is well intended, but if we made this difference, the device would not be reconnected and there would be no need for tracking. If there is a need, perhaps we should just time-limit it. I accept the advice the Minister has been given, but there is a way round that argument.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am content, with the noble Lord’s experience of how these matters can be dealt with, to reflect on what he has said, but it does not get away from the fact that the problems I have outlined with the amendment as drafted would still be present. I cannot accept the amendment today but, in principle, we are all looking for solutions to stopping mobile phones being stolen, either by effective police action on the ground or by use of neighbourhood policing targeting hotspot areas with high levels of mobile phone theft. The noble Lord mentioned Tube exits, for example.

I cannot accept the amendment in this form because the reasons I have given need to be thought through. The noble Lord’s contribution points to another area where thought can be given. In light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment for now, but not the general concern of this Committee and this Government that we need to take action on this issue.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

Not so far as I know.

It was absolutely farcical, but not very funny, when you consider that the hundreds of police officers involved had far more useful things that they could have been doing. But it seems even that was not enough for the Government. Through this Bill, they are attempting to introduce a raft of further constraints on the right of the British people to express themselves via peaceful street demonstrations.

The law surrounding protest is in a complete mess. Recent legislation has been knee-jerk and reactionary, leaving the legal landscape a complete muddle. Police often struggle to know how to police demonstrations properly, which usually leads to excessive heavy-handed policing and people being charged with all sorts of offences when they may not have been. This has also made the law extremely unpredictable: the mission creep of legislation and case law over recent years has meant that there is now a raft of serious criminal offences —that is, indictable offences—tried in the Crown Court that are no doubt adding to the unacceptable backlog in the courts. It is very easy for someone to attend a peaceful demonstration and inadvertently commit an offence or a more serious offence than they would have reasonably expected their conduct to amount to.

For example, a protester who temporarily blocks a road—as many do—would historically have been charged with wilful obstruction of the highway under Section 137 of the Highways Act. This was a summary-only offence, which used to have a maximum sentence of a fine, although this was increased to six months’ custody in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023 introduced a new offence of interfering with national infrastructure, which includes all A and B roads, with a maximum sentence of 12 months’ custody. Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 also created a new statutory offence of public nuisance, which only requires the doing of an act that obstructs a public right. This is far wider than the old common-law offence that required the obstruction to be “significant”. The effect of all the above, as an illustration, is that someone who stands or sits in a road, as part of a protest, could be charged with any of the four offences that I have just mentioned. There is no real consistency in the charging decisions between different police forces or different CPS regions, meaning that people are often charged with very serious offences for minor conduct. There have even been cases in which different people are charged with different offences arising from identical conduct at the same protest.

The various laws about protest overlap with each other and have not been developed as a coherent framework. Protesters and police are unsure about which laws apply in particular situations. This results in inadvertently heavy-handed policing, inconsistent prosecution, miscarriages of justice, waste of the public purse and clogging up the courts. More importantly, it results in a cumulative chilling effect on our democracy and a stifling of debate. It is high time that the disorganised and disjointed framework of statutes covering the democratically vital activity of protest is subject to a root-and-branch review—one that is truly independent and thorough—and that is precisely what Amendment 371 calls for.

However, since Amendment 371 was laid, the Government have announced a review of public order and hate crime legislation. It is being chaired by the noble Lord, Macdonald of River Glaven, for whom I have the greatest respect. But the terms of reference for the review seem to be focused rather narrowly and do not appear to cover the matters I have just raised—namely, the unco-ordinated and overlapping legislation on protests. I doubt that, in the short period until the review reports next month, the noble Lord will be able to examine the different approaches to arresting and charging between the different police forces. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee that the current review will be broad enough to cover all the shortfalls in the existing regime I have outlined. If he cannot give that assurance, Amendment 371 will need to be passed on Report to generate the full review that is needed.

Amendment 369, if passed, will hopefully prevent future Governments cumulatively eroding protest rights, as has been customary for the last few years.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I would vote against Amendment 371. It is a difficult area and there has to be balance. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it very well. We get more disruption from Remembrance Day every year across the country because roads are closed and people cannot do what they want to do. There are many times in society when we do things which cause disruption to others, but, if pushed, I would be more towards the position of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, than I would Amendment 371.

I have three points to make on Amendment 371. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it duplicates what is already in the convention rights, and I cannot see the purpose of that. Secondly, it says nothing about the basic dilemma, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, demonstrated very well: most protest is intended to cause disruption in order to attract attention. People say that causing disruption is a right in a democracy, and I agree with that entirely, but I have to say that it is one of the most inefficient mechanisms for getting an argument over. A guy shouted about Brexit outside my office for about three years. All I could hear was one word about not liking Brexit; I never heard what his argument was. I am not sure a protest ever does any of that. It just attracts attention.

Disruption does cause that attention, but making Amendment 371 the only reason why the police would have to decide whether a march went ahead and if conditions were to be imposed would not address that basic dilemma. Nor would it address the dilemma that mass disobedience has, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said, achieved far more in the way of democratic change than many forms of parliamentary intervention. It is a mechanism, but a balance has to be struck. Individuals have a right, in addition to the police allowing them to do so, to make sure they can get to a hospital or that a fire engine can get through when it needs to, rather than simply when someone concludes that they will let it through.

Thirdly, the criminal law is the wrong place to state convention rights. If you are going to state them, there may be a place in law, but the criminal law is for declaring offences. If you want to start declaring rights, you might want to start declaring human responsibilities. The start of the Human Rights Act talks about human responsibilities but never got around to providing any enforcement mechanisms. All those things we ought to have as duties towards each other are articulated nowhere. Protestors can have their right to protest, but they do not have to worry about the rights of the poor child who cannot get to school or people who are trying to attend a place of worship. They have rights too, but the protestor apparently does not have to balance their rights when considering exercising his or her own.

My final point is a direct challenge to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who I really like and respect, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was quite right: it is quite unfair to criticise the police for arresting people at marches who are supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. You may not like the proscription, but this place passed the legislation. We also passed legislation saying that it is an offence to support a proscribed organisation. Therefore, if you start waving banners about and saying you support these organisations, there will be a consequence. I do not see how it is okay to argue that the police, in taking action on the laws we passed, are doing something wrong. You may not agree with the law, but it is not right to blame the police for exercising it. That is a confusion that has arisen over the last few months, and it is one we can put right.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

The objection was to the way that terrorism legislation was misused to, in effect, suppress protest. It was misused by combining as a group Palestine Action with two other desperately terrorist organisations, so that MPs and Peers had no opportunity to decide on one and not the other two. It was a bit of a fix.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I understand the point from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. My only challenge is that I do not think it is fair or accurate to blame the police for that confusion. I would stand up for the police, of course, but it would be better of this place to acknowledge that dilemma without blaming them for exercising the powers that we gave them.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I will resist the temptation to go further into the rights and wrongs and logical inconsistencies of some noble Lords’ views on the proscription of Palestine Action.

I hope that I offer the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lords Strasburger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, some reassurance that, in my view, they do not necessarily need to put Amendment 371 on the statute book or even wait for the review lead by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. There is an excellent review into protest law, Protecting our Democracy from Coercion, which I was privileged to lay before the House in my then role as the Government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The review covers this whole area. I am pleased that the last Government enacted some of its recommendations, and I am still urging this Government to go somewhat further. It may not strike quite the same chord, but it is there, and it has been done. Some of the recommendations from that review are related to this topic, but they will come in later groupings, so we will get to them when we do.

I will offer a couple of brief thoughts on these fascinating amendments. Many noble Lords have mentioned the balance here, and clearly there is one. It is probably true that the amendments from noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, take a maximalist approach. I am not sure that even I would go that far, and it might well prove to be unworkable. However, it is important for any legislator looking at this area to understand where the public are on this. If we talk about defending democracy, but so gratuitously ignore and act against the very strongly held views of the public on this, then we are getting ourselves into a very difficult place.

None of this detracts from the right to protest. I mentioned my own review, which was published last year. In that review there is polling, which accords with a great deal of polling done by other sources, that shows just how strongly the public object to and oppose disruptive protests. Big majorities of the public are in favour of the right to protest, which is reassuring, but, as soon as it becomes disruptive, they oppose it by a margin of about nine to one.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 369 raises an interesting challenge by explicitly stating the right to protest. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is, of course, right that this is unnecessary, in the sense that the right is already enshrined in other areas. Further, where the proposers of this amendment seek to draw the balance glaringly omits the issue of disruption—it completely omits it.

The prospect of avoiding all disruption in protests is clearly not realistic and would go against the point. But we are in an era when much protest is increasingly organised and designed to cause significant economic damage through the disruption of people’s daily lives, often preventing working people from getting to work. I am seeing senior trade unionists scowl at me for making this point, but I would just ask those who have been in trade unions to consider what it feels like for working people to be stopped from being able to go to their workplace and contribute fairly, and being intimidated and shouted at as they go through the doors of their factory or try to go through them and are blocked.

Any attempt to place a balance, whether it is on the statute book, or in an attempt to create new laws, or to shift that balance, which does not acknowledge the harmful effect of disruptive protests on the economy or acknowledge that these things need to be properly balanced, is destined to make very bad law and be intensely unpopular with the public.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am quite open- minded about the clause on face coverings and whether it is a good or bad thing to have face coverings at protests. I have just a couple of points for the Government in considering whether to change the provisions in any way.

First, imposing more conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested, to narrow the provisions might be laudable but will make them harder and harder to enforce. The officers on the street can take action only on what they see, and if the person alleges that they have a member of their family in Iran, or wherever it happens to be, it will be quite hard for the officer on the street, so it may make no difference at all to the initial action. At the ongoing investigation and prosecution that might follow, they may then want to rebut—if they intend to—the claim that that defence is available. It will impose more burden on the prosecution, so we must be very careful about the conditions that we impose on it.

Secondly, although we tend to think about face masks being worn by only some people in the crowd, we could anticipate that everybody in the crowd wears a mask. If that is the case, it can be quite intimidating, and it makes normal policing quite difficult to embark on. For example, one way in which you would notice if someone has a bail condition that they should not attend a protest is whether you can recognise them. In terms of general investigation, if everybody has a mask, it is quite difficult to distinguish one person from another. We might anticipate some of the things that we saw in the 1930s. We have the Public Order Act 1936, which was intended to stop people from wearing uniforms. It could become a kind of uniform, or at least an aspect of a uniform, to signify support for a political purpose.

This clause needs some thought if it is to go forward. I ask for as much consideration as possible for the enforcers, who will be criticised if they get it wrong, but we can anticipate now whether they might be left in an invidious position.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I rather agree with the noble Lord’s concern about how ever more protest laws are to be operated in practice by police officers, who are dealing with a growing and ever more complex statute book. But I wonder what he thinks about the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that the powers already exist to require and direct people to remove a mask, which could be done to individuals. In the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, gives of everyone wearing a mask as a form of intimidatory uniform, what does he think about the fact that the power already exists? What is an officer to do, faced with those duplicative powers and offences?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

It is a fair question. I would only say that, generally speaking, if you have a large crowd and a significant number within it wearing masks, the chances of you telling them all to take them off are very limited. If I understand the proposal, it is to prevent people arriving at the march with a mask rather than having to deal with it once they arrive. If you have to deal with it, you will have to deal with it. That is the only thing I would say: having allowed people to mask up, you cannot then expect officers to deal with a crowd of 5,000 or 6,000—it is just impractical. That is the argument against it, but I understand why the argument is made.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I broadly agree with the excellent comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in moving this, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I was reminded, when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us of the exemptions, that retrospectively, having been arrested or having had your mask removed, or what have you, you can say, “I was wearing this mask for health reasons”, or for work reasons, or for religious observance. The fact that there are exemptions for those reasons and not for others indicates what a ridiculous situation it is. Why have those three things only as reasons why you are allowed to wear masks? Let us just think about it. At what work would you be allowed to wear a mask? Could you say, “Well, I deliver pizzas so I have a helmet on”? Everyone could then turn up wearing a helmet saying that it was to do with their work. That just does not make any sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I happen to support these clauses, but I have the same concern as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this has been drawn rather too narrowly and there may be areas that may have to be considered.

Secondly, the noble Lord is quite right: the clauses give this power to the police to prevent crimes being committed. What happens if the police get it wrong? We all know what happened with the sus law and reasonable grounds to suspect: they suspected and stopped people again and again, and nothing was actually worth suspecting. I do not want an answer; I want the possibility of considering what will happen if the police get it wrong. We have the Birmingham question still; I do not want to talk about it, because there are inquiries going on. What measures does the noble Lord want to address the particular conundrum that is there?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I add this, to save time. I know people are trying to expand the number of conditions, but I would like us not to run away with the assumption that the work face mask makes sense. Intuitively, it does, but I do not understand the paint sprayer who is at a protest wearing their mask. They are either at the protest or at work; I am not sure why they are wearing the mask at the protest. I do not understand that juxtaposition, and it may be for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to consider as well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, time is pressing for the response, but that is largely due to interventions. I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that the main objective of the police in this process will be to ensure that there is a peaceful demonstration, with no trouble for the community at large. If the police overpolice an issue, that is potentially an area where trouble can commence. So I give the judgment to the police to do this in a proper and effective way.

A number of comments have been made, and we will always reflect on those comments, but I stick, particularly because of time, to the contention that the clauses should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. First, I say to the right reverend Prelate that the peaceful religious processions that he had in mind, such as those at Easter, were not the sort of processions that the chief constable of Greater Manchester Police had in mind when he recently said something to the effect of him having seen an appalling increase in aggro and violence in demonstrations, and that:

“The intolerable has become normalised”.


That is quite different from the peaceful processions that the right reverend Prelate had in mind.

Before I turn to my amendments, I want to say how much I enjoyed the Minister’s winding-up speech in the previous debate. He was in absolutely top form, especially in his demolition of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I suspect that most of the best bits in his speech were not written by his officials; I shall treasure them. I hope that I do not become a victim of such a wonderful oration against me.

I have two amendments in this group. The first is quite small, simple and titchy, and the second is slightly more complicated.

Clause 122(2) says:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they—


(a) had a good reason for climbing on the specified memorial,


(b) were the owner or occupier of the specified memorial, or


(c) had the consent of the owner or occupier”


to do so. My first amendment would delete the general excuse of having a “good reason”. The only defences left for a person charged with an offence under Clause 122 would be that they were the owner or occupier of the memorial or had the consent of the owner or occupier to climb on it. I wonder about “occupier”; I presume that that is to cover memorials that are not just statues but buildings, such as the Hall of Memory in Birmingham. I would be grateful for a slight elucidation on what is meant by the occupier of a memorial.

I turn to the proposed new clause in my Amendment 378B. It is simple in principle but looks a bit complicated. It simply reproduces the operative test, as well as the definition of “community”, in the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023 and would put them in the Bill, giving them primary law status. This would improve legal certainty and parliamentary scrutiny.

Many clauses in the Bill, and many of the amendments, speak of

“serious disruption to the life of the community”.

We may conclude from this that the disruption must be pretty serious indeed to qualify as “serious”. However, that is not the case since the previous Government passed the 2023 regulations, which defined and, some commentators would say, diluted the concept of serious disruption.

In plain terms, my proposed new clause would place in the Bill all the illustrative examples and interpretive tests introduced in the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations. As I suggested, those regulations make amendments to provisions in the Public Order Act 1986 concerning the meaning of the expression

“serious disruption to the life of the community”.

Section 12 of the Act gives the police the power to impose conditions on people organising and taking part in public processions. A senior police officer can exercise this power if they reasonably believe that a procession may result in

“serious disruption to the life of the community”.

Serious disruption to the life of the community is not defined in the Act itself, but Section 12(2A) sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples that may constitute serious disruption.

The 2023 regulations refine that list. The amendments to Section 12(2A) and (2B) of the Act also provide that, when considering whether a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption, a senior police officer must take into account the disruption that may occur regardless of whether the procession is held, as well as the disruption that may result from the procession, and may take into account the cumulative disruption that may be caused by more than one public procession or public assembly in the same area. The amendments also provide that the term “community” extends to anyone who may be affected by the public procession regardless of whether they live or work in the vicinity of the procession. They state that “disruption” is anything

“that is more than minor”,

in particular to

“the making of a journey”

or access to goods and services. The regulations define this as

“access to any essential goods or any essential service”,

including access to

“the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel … a system of communication … a place of worship … a transport facility … an educational institution, or … a service relating to health”.

That is what the regulations say in redefining

“serious disruption to the life of the community”

in the Act. Although my amendment looks complicated, it simply suggests that those regulations should be incorporated into the Bill as primary legislation. Transferring the regulations into the Bill would bring legal clarity—the police, courts and organisers would read the statutory test directly from the Act rather than a separate statutory instrument, reducing uncertainty about where the operative tests are located. It would mirror the stated purposes of the 2023 regulations to provide greater clarity. It would bring consistency of application—putting the tests in primary legislation would reduce the risk of interpretive divergence between different SIs or guidance and make the threshold for imposing conditions more visible to Parliament and the public. The cumulative effects would be preserved—the clause could, and should, reproduce the regulations’ treatment of cumulative effects so that multiple impacts are properly captured, as the regulations already contemplate cumulative assessment.

Of course, the Minister will say that embedding illustrative examples in primary law makes future policy adjustments harder and might require primary legislation and time to respond to unforeseen operational guidance. However, I suggest that retaining my proposed new clause, to secure clarity and parliamentary oversight but add a short delegated powers safeguard—a power to change it in future by regulations—would be perfectly okay.

I support Amendment 369A on pyrotechnics at protests tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower on the Front Bench, but it does not go far enough. I cannot think of any lawful excuse for possessing pyrotechnic articles while taking part in a protest. Protests are a vital part of our democratic life. They are a place for voices to be heard, grievances to be aired and change to be sought. But they are not a place for devices that can cause panic, injury or irreversible escalation. Pyrotechnics are designed to startle, burn, explode and smoke; they are not tools of peaceful persuasion. To allow a defence based on an honestly held political belief risks turning lawful protest into a dangerous theatre of risk and fear. Public safety must be paramount.

There are a few other things I could say about pyrotechnics at protests, but I will cut short my remarks in the interests of time. I see no justification whatever for anyone to have pyrotechnics at any protest or for there to be a lawful defence for it.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support and have added my name to Amendment 382H. I also support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. My support is based on the concerns over and consequences of the Ziegler case. Noble Lords have said today that it was wrong in law, but that is not for me to say. The policy consequences for policing the streets of this country have been profound and negative, particularly in the area of public protest and disorder policing.

The Ziegler case was one of the simplest offences to prove in the criminal law. It was an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. There were only three parts to prove; it was wilful, it was obstruction and they were on a highway. That was the offence, and it is one of the simplest we have policed over the years. It became complex only when people alleged that there was a reasonable excuse—for which read “a political purpose”—for their obstruction of the highway.

In the past, all the police needed to prove was that it was a highway—which is well established in law—that it had been obstructed and, usually, that they had asked someone to move on and they had either returned or not moved. That was about as complicated as it was. But as soon as you have to import intent, recklessness or reasonable excuse, the offence starts to become more complex and the police have to think carefully before intervening. I know that in this House people sometimes talk about the police being careless with the law, reactive and reactionary—I am not talking about any individual; I am just saying, as a general comment, that it has been said—but my experience is that, on the whole, they try to get it right and to balance everybody’s rights, often in very difficult circumstances.

My reading of Ziegler is that the Supreme Court seemed to say that dealing with obstruction of the highway is far too simple when dealing with protesters—that it is okay for everybody else but for protesters it gets a little more complicated. The Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of the convention rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, sometimes grouped together as the right to protest, constituted a lawful excuse, which means that before a person can be convicted for obstructing the highway, the prosecution must prove that a conviction would be a proportionate, and thus justified, interference with that person’s convention rights. The Ziegler judgment has caused very real difficulties for police in dealing with environmental and many other protests and, I argue, for judges in attempting to run trials fairly and efficiently and instruct juries about what must be proved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have had 30 years in Parliament, not all in this House, and I have used it occasionally and had it used against me occasionally. It is unnecessary given that we have had the legislation on the statute book to date. The noble Earl asks the quite reasonable question of how the M25 gets blocked. I put it to him that this House, this Government, this Parliament and any other parliament passes legislation. It is not for Ministers to implement that: it is for the local police, at a local level, to take a judgment on the legislation at that time. In the cases where there is legislation on the statute book, the police could exercise that legislation. They may or may not choose to do so, because it may inflame the situation or not. It is a matter for judgment by the local police. I simply say to him that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are already in place. For that reason, I ask him to not to press them.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, raised the issue of facilitating protest, which is often cited. It made me think, “I don’t know where that is”. I have just had a quick look, and I do not think it exists. I think Article 11 of the ECHR suggests that the police should not inhibit public protests and certainly should not try to intimidate protesters; that is different from making it sound as though they are there to market protest or to be the arrangers of protests so that they achieve their aim. The trouble is that the police have got into that mindset. They would have to do everything to protect the protester and, if they are not careful, forget the rest. That is why I challenge the Minister, not because I think it is badly intended but because I do not think it is accurate in terms of the ECHR.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a comment for me and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, to reflect on, but I maintain the position. The police have a difficult job. Legislation is in place currently, and the proposals brought forward would replicate that. I am trying to sit down, but I see the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so once again I will take an intervention.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments seek to improve Clause 124. It is worth reminding ourselves that this clause seeks to amend Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. Curiously, that section was itself amended in 2022 to allow the senior police officer to impose conditions on a march if it resulted in

“serious disruption to the life of the community”,

in particular where it results in

“a significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers”,

or

“disruption of access to any essential goods”

or services to be delivered to places of worship. It is somewhat strange that the Act was amended to allow goods and services to be delivered, but did not mention disruption to the services themselves, so Clause 124 is a great improvement and a great help.

However, I wish to draw to the attention of the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Katz, that Section 12 is dependent upon the actions of a “senior police officer”, who “may”—the Act is specific on that word—decide to take action. I guess that he may not, as he is not required so to do. The Home Office will still be totally and solely reliant on the decisions of the senior police officer being put into action. There is no override envisaged that the Home Office can apply.

While I am on my feet, I believe that exactly the same point applies to Amendment 372 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson; again, it says that a senior police officer may choose to do this. I suggest that does not deal with the problem that when complaints are made by members of the public, politicians currently simply put their hands up and say, “It’s nothing to do with us; this is a police matter”. As we have seen in the West Midlands, we cannot rely on the police in every instance to do their duty and act fairly.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is the third time I have raised this point in debates on this Bill. In the previous two discussions, I have not really had an answer from the Ministers. In fact, I am not expecting them to answer it right now. What I am asking is for a commitment to consider this point, reflect on it and possibly meet those with an interest in the matter, and for it to be addressed by the time of Report.

My amendments are needed so that we can be sure that if protesters are banned from being near synagogues, they are stopped from simply heading towards Jewish faith schools and Jewish community centres. Of course, if my amendments protect schools and community centres of other faiths then I would be absolutely delighted, so I hope that these amendments will receive support from all sides of the House. Disappointingly, there is not a Bishop on their Bench, because, in my view, places of worship of all denominations need to be addressed by the Bill.

Make no mistake: Jewish people are leaving the UK as they no longer feel safe, particularly with the marches threatening to come back. I was in Israel last week on a parliamentary Conservative Friends of Israel trip, and Israelis were asking me, “Is it safe to be in London or Manchester any more?”. Businesspeople, academics, scientists, tourists and clerics are all nervous about coming to the UK. As we know, by the way, the marches in Westcliff-on-Sea led to synagogue attendance falling, which cannot be acceptable. We now need to be ahead of the protesters, not behind them. We need to protect faith schools and community centres.

Indeed, there have already been protests outside a Jewish community centre; there is one called JW3, which I support. When protesters were outside it on 27 October, there were unpleasant and aggressive slogans, and the police were powerless to move them on. Ironically, they were protesting at an event which was a conference to talk about future peace progress, with Palestinian representatives speaking.

My amendments attempt to pre-empt what we fear will happen after Clause 124 is passed. I have the support of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, of the Jewish Leadership Council—I declare that I serve as a vice-president—and of the Community Security Trust. All these organisations urge that my amendments be passed. As the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said the other day, these proposals do not conflict with anything the Macdonald review might say. The Government need no persuasion of this, because they themselves have proposed Clause 124 and Amendment 372, both of which would ordinarily be covered by the Macdonald review. There is no reason, then, to wait for his report to put through the proposed amendments.

I hope that by Report, the Minister will be able to signal his acceptance of these amendments, because we will keep pressing them. I am sure that the Government will want to play their part in trying to dial down the anti-Israel, and consequently antisemitic, febrile activities and mood. In my opinion, it is most unfortunate that the Government chose to recognise the State of Palestine when they did. This risked giving the organisations of protest the message that their aggressive and unpleasant actions were being rewarded. The Government now have an opportunity to try to show some even-handedness. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments for the reasons that have been mentioned. Lists are always difficult, because wherever you draw the line, there may be another group to be added, but this is a sensible pair of additions to the definition as applied in the Bill. It is difficult, not least because this week we have seen complaints about what is happening in Notting Hill, where an Israeli restaurant seems to have had a protest directly outside it for no other reason than that it happens to be Israeli. This does not seem to have anything to do with the people attending or running the place, other than the connection to Israel. No matter where we draw the line on the list, there may always be others to add. But if we cannot protect children, and we cannot protect where minority and faith groups gather to share their faith, then our society will probably be worse for it. Providing this definition will make the police’s job easier. While others may argue for more to be added to the list, these are two reasonable, well-founded additions.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, that senior police officers do not always act as they should. On Tuesday in particular, I expressed that concern in these proceedings and was rather rebuffed by the Minister. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that I do not believe that senior police officers in particular cannot generally be relied upon to act in the best interests of their community, but I urge the Government to beware of legislating in the confident expectation that they always will. The reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, are justified. As he explained, Clause 124, if unamended, will permit a senior police officer to impose restrictions where processions or protests are

“in the vicinity of a place of worship and may intimidate persons of reasonable firmness”,

and deter them from attending

“a place of worship for the purpose of carrying out religious activities”,

or from actually carrying out such activities. As the noble Lord has explained, the amendments would add faith schools and faith community centres to list of institutions where conditions might be imposed.

On Tuesday, we went through considerable argument about the purposes of Clause 124. There was a great deal of discussion about protecting synagogues on successive Saturdays, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised the important point that communities gather together, worship or carry out religious activities and celebrations in areas quite apart from synagogues. Bondi Beach, after all, is not a synagogue: it is a public beach where Hanukkah celebrations had been organised and were being attended by Jewish communities.

I add my voice to those of the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Leigh of Hurley: our faith communities need protecting wherever they are gathering for the purposes of their faith. That said, I certainly agree, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with the extension of this power to cover religious activities at faith schools and faith community centres. That would be a proportionate protection, and well defined. Faith schools are a particular sensitivity, because they are principally for young people of given faiths, who may be damaged psychologically for life by being attacked in or in the vicinity of those schools. The same goes for faith community centres, where Sunday school activities or religious education may be taking place. Of course, this is of particular importance to the Jewish community in the present climate, in the light of the horrific attacks that have taken place, about which we have heard a great deal. But it is also very important that Muslim faith schools and community centres should be protected too in the presence of considerable xenophobia and Islamophobia.

We need these protections; we need to combat the fear that is now beginning to permeate the whole of our national life, and which has a really unpleasant and damaging effect. It destroys community cohesion, national spirit and the tolerance for which this country has long been famous.

--- Later in debate ---

We cannot uninvent facial recognition technology, and nor should we want to. It is already here and we cannot turn back the clock. However, we can set legal limits on how it is used and what happens to the mass of data it collects about innocent citizens. That is what we have done for decades with fingerprints and DNA. At long last, just before Christmas, this Government, to their credit, launched a consultation on facial recognition technology, which might or might not lead to legislation sometime in the future. In the meantime, Amendment 379 would put a hold on using facial recognition technology for the mass surveillance of protesters until the essential statutory rules and oversight are in place. For that reason, I commend it wholeheartedly to the House.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I agree and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, in equal measure, which may surprise him. On the protest point, he reaffirmed what I tried to say the other day, which is that the ECHR does not give the term “facilitation of protest”, but the police have given that term and put that sobriquet over the articles. The danger is—and I am afraid it is what materialised—that it has been interpreted as almost arranging some of the protests rather than the simplistic expression of “facilitation”. I do not think that we are a mile apart on it, but I come at it from a slightly different angle.

I think that facial recognition is an incredibly good thing. People during the debate have agreed that it has a value. It has two purposes: one is to try retrospectively to match a crime scene suspect with the database that the police hold of convicted people; and the other one, which has caused more concern and on which there may be common ground, is about the live use of it.

One thing that I think needs to be amplified—the Minister may mention it when he responds—is that the Court of Appeal has decided that the police use of facial recognition is legal. However, it did raise concerns—this is where I certainly agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Doocey, who already made this point—that it needs to treat all people equally. It is not okay to have a high failure rate against one group by race and a different success rate against another race. That is not acceptable. I was surprised, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was, when this had not been made public and was discovered in whatever way it was discovered. That needs to be got right. There is no justification for that error rate, and it must be resolved.

Secondly, this may surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but I agree that there should be more regulation of its use, and that it should be regulation by Parliament, not by the police. Where I disagree is on whether this Act, and this proposed amendment, is the right way to do it. We are going to have to learn, first, how the technology works, how it is applied by the police, where its benefits are and where its risks are. I also agree that there ought to be independent oversight of it and that anybody who is offended by its use should have the opportunity to get someone to check into it to see whether it has been misused. They should also be provided with a remedy. A remedy may be financial compensation, but I would argue that it is probably better that something happens to the database to make it less likely to be ineffective in the future. There needs to be some reassurance that somebody is improving this system rather than not. I am for facial recognition, but there should be regulation and I do not think that this Act is the right time. As has already been said, the consultation that started just before Christmas and concludes, I think, in February will give us a good way forward, but it will need a bit more thought than this Bill, when it becomes an Act, might offer us.

Finally, there are an awful lot of regulators out there, and we all pay for them. There are surveillance commissioners, intrusive surveillance commissioners and biometric commissioners. They are all examining the same area—if they ever get together and decide to have one commissioner to look at the lot, we would probably save quite a lot of money. This is an area in which the existing commissioners probably could do two things. One is to regulate and the other, potentially, is to approve, either in retrospect or prospectively depending on the emergency or the urgency with which it should be used. There is therefore some need for help but, for me, I do not think that this Bill is the right opportunity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have signed this amendment because I think it is very sensible and covers some ground that really needs tackling. It would ensure that the police could not use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under Sections 12 or 14 unless a new specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been formally approved by both Houses of Parliament—that sounds quite democratic, does it not? It is intended to safeguard public privacy and civil liberties by requiring democratic oversight before this surveillance technology is deployed in such contexts.

It is always interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, former Met Commissioner, on the tiny little areas where we do overlap in agreement; I think it is very healthy. However, I disagree deeply when he says this is not the legislation and it should be something else. We keep hearing that. I cannot tell noble Lords how many times I, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, have raised this issue here in Parliament and in other places. The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, asked a quite interesting question: why should we care? Quite honestly, I care because I believe in justice and in fairness, and I want those in society. As I pointed out yesterday, I am a highly privileged white female; I have been arrested, but I was de-arrested almost immediately by the Met Police when all the surrounding people started saying, “Do you know who she is?” and they immediately took the handcuffs off.

At some point we have to accept that this needs regulation. We cannot accept that the police constantly mark their own homework. We were reassured that all the flaws in the algorithm and so on had been fixed, but clearly we cannot be sure of that because we do not have any way of knowing exactly what the flaws were and who has fixed them. Live facial recognition represents a huge departure from long-established principles of British policing. In this country, people are not required to identify themselves to the police unless they are suspected of wrongdoing. Live facial recognition turns that principle on its head by subjecting everyone in range of a camera to an automated identity check. It treats innocent members of the public as potential suspects and undermines the presumption of innocence.

I disagree deeply with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, when he says that it is not a blanket surveillance tool—of course it is. It is a blanket surveillance tool and is highly dangerous from that point of view. It is a mass biometric surveillance tool. It scans faces in real time, retains images of those flagged by the system and does so without individuals’ knowledge or consent.

If the police randomly stopped people in the street to check their fingerprints against a database, for example, we would rightly be alarmed. Live facial recognition performs the same function, only invisibly and at scale. Its use in the context of protest is a dangerous crossing of a constitutional line. We already have evidence that facial recognition has been deployed at demos and major public events, with a chilling effect on lawful protest. People will not go to these protests because they feel vulnerable. They are deterred from exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly because they fear being identified, tracked or wrongly stopped. While this amendment proposes a safeguard through parliamentary approval of a statutory code, we should not allow that to imply acceptance of live facial recognition at protests in principle. In my view, this technology has absolutely no place in the policing of democratic dissent.

We should reflect on the broader direction of travel. Live facial recognition is most enthusiastically embraced by authoritarian regimes, while a number of democratic countries have moved to restrict or even prohibit its use. That alone should surely give this Government pause to reflect on whether this is the right legislation to bring in. Independent observers have witnessed cases in which live facial recognition has misidentified children in school uniform, leading to lengthy and very distressing police stops. In some instances, those wrongly flagged were young black children, subjected to aggressive questioning and fingerprinting despite having done nothing wrong. What safeguards are in place to prevent misidentification, particularly of children and people from UK minority-ethnic communities? That is a basic question that we should be asking before we pass this legislation. I support the amendment as an essential check, but I hope that this debate sends a wider message that Parliament will not allow the routine use of intrusive biometric surveillance to become the price of exercising fundamental democratic rights.

I want to pick up something that the Minister said on Tuesday. He directed the Committee to the front page of the Bill and said that, in his view, the Bill was compliant with the ECHR. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, that is his belief and his view. It is absolutely not a certificate of accuracy. I am not suggesting for one moment that there is any intent to deceive; I am merely saying that it is not a certificate of truth. With claims about seemingly authoritarian laws being compliant with human rights, that assessment can be challenged and should be challenged as much as possible. It remains subjective and is challenged by the organisation Justice, for example. We are clearly going to disagree about a lot in this Bill, but we are trying our best over here to make the law fair and representative of a justice that we think should exist here in Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sits down, can he address an issue that none of us has addressed yet? These amendments concern the state’s use of facial recognition, for all the reasons that we have talked about. But the private sector is far in advance of this. Some 12 or 13 years ago, it was using a product called Facewatch, which was started at Gordon’s Wine Bar because Gordon was sick of people walking into the bar and either violently assaulting his patrons or stealing things. He put a clever camera on the door and patrons did not get into the bar if they had been accused of something in the past. That product has moved right around the world, and certainly it is extensively used in the UK in different settings.

I am not arguing that that is good or bad; I merely observe that, if we end up in a position where the police have less access to something that can be a good technology, and private commerce is getting benefits that presumably it is able to justify, that inequality of arms does not benefit anyone. It should at least be considered in the consultation that the Government started, which is particularly focused on the police. But as well as the police, we should consider airports, railway stations, et cetera.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Very briefly, I do not think that the noble Lord is making a bad case at all. Live facial recognition, whether in the hands of the public sector or the private sector, needs a proper legal framework: there is no doubt about that. My noble friend made it clear that we believe it is a useful technology, but, the more useful it is, the more we need to make sure that it is under proper control.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

My main purpose is to take the opportunity of this Bill to aid better enforcement of the law by the police. My amendment would allow the police actively to identify those committing crimes such as phone theft, delivering drugs, harassing and intimidating the young or the old, including riding dangerously past my house on the pavement at very high speed. The Minister promised to look into the matter for me and to consider my amendment. We share the same objective and I hope he will agree to this modest amendment to make it easier for the police to do their excellent work. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I am generally with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and we have done an awful lot together to look at cyclists being held more accountable. On this, however, I am probably going to suggest an amendment to her amendment. As it stands, the problem with her amendment is that the police currently have the power to stop any vehicle on the road without reason. They can stop somebody with or without a mask, or for no reason at all. This power would therefore not add anything, given that the police already have the power to stop any vehicle.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, acknowledged, whether it be in the cool of the winter, or even sometimes on a cool summer’s day, there is a reason to wear a mask or a face covering if you are cycling, because it gets cold. We have probably all been there. However, something to look at in the future—perhaps on Report—is whether someone, having been stopped, can be ordered to remove their face mask. There is not an awful lot of point in stopping them and they can keep their face mask on if their identity is in question. That is also true for motorcyclists, who wear helmets. Their faces are obviously encased in a helmet and there is no power to ask them to remove the helmet. Most of them do, because it gets pretty uncomfortable after a few minutes—in fact, if you prolong the conversation long enough, they always take it off—but there is no power to compel them to do it. That may be something that could be considered in the future.

On the police needing powers to stop cyclists, there is no power to stop an e-scooter, but any vehicle on the road can be stopped by an officer for any reason—not the least of which is that the police are expected to direct traffic. That is one of the reasons that they are given the power to either redirect or stop vehicles. So, as it stands, I am not sure about this amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the excellent and tightly drafted amendment from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I say that it is tightly drawn because proposed new subsection (2) is about concealing one’s identity, not about wearing the clothes themselves: the scarf or the hat. I speak as a cyclist who frequently cycles in the winter, when of course you need to wear protective clothing to keep you warm. However, this is about allowing a police officer, or another person who is entitled to know your identity, to know your identity, and it is about failing to stop when required to do so by a constable.

I am glad that my noble friend mentioned the issue of live facial recognition. I am just about to finish my four-year term on the British Transport Police Authority. In terms of clear-up rates, one of the issues we have in unfortunately failing to tackle violence against women and girls—which, of course, is a government priority and a priority of the Department for Transport—is that we have way too many persistent, repeat offenders on bail who are travelling on the rail network and who are able to enter stations and get on trains. Live facial recognition, were it to be rolled out for a good reason, with proper checks and balances, would significantly reduce the incidence of those people being able to get on trains and Tubes and assault women and girls, and others. Live facial recognition is important because, if people are going to be wearing face coverings, that will naturally circumscribe the powers used in live facial recognition.

Rates of crime on bikes and scooters have gone up. Many people who are committing those crimes are hiding their identity and I believe that, in most cases, there is a legitimate reason for the police to stop them. In 2024, Sky News received figures from FoI requests that showed that crimes involving e-bikes and e-scooters had risen by more than 730% in the preceding five years. These crimes included theft, robbery, burglary, drug trafficking, stalking, rape, violent crimes and weapons offences. In 2023-24, 11,266 crimes were recorded that mentioned an e-bike or e-scooter—up from just 1,354 in 2019-20. These figures do not include data from the Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police—I know that West Midlands Police have been busy doing other things, not always to their great credit —so the actual numbers were likely higher.

On 30 December 2025, the Metropolitan Police reported that it had seized 37 e-bikes and scooters in an attempt to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. That resulted in 52 arrests and weapons being seized. Between January and December 2025, Merseyside Police seized 1,000 unregistered vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters and scramblers. It launched Operation Gears in July 2024 to deal with crime and anti-social behaviour linked specifically to bikes and scooters. In its words, two-wheeled vehicles

“are increasingly linked to serious criminal activity, including violence, robberies, and serious organised crime (SOC) offences”.

The Metropolitan Police has also produced reasonably new data—up to the end of 2023. They show that there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London using a motorcycle or an e-bike in 2023, and a face covering was worn in over 1,000 of those. These statistics demonstrate that it is legitimate to link bikes and scooters to crimes. Therefore, if someone is covering their face specifically to avoid identity while using these vehicles, it does raise suspicion, and it most emphatically gives police a legitimate reason to exercise their due and proper powers. On that basis, I support my noble friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union, which has been campaigning against non-crime hate incidents for at least five years.

I thought it might be helpful to begin with a definition of what an NCHI is. The amendment itself says that it is

“any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity”.

How many of these incidents have been recorded by the police since the concept of NCHIs was introduced by the College of Policing in 2014? The Telegraph submitted an FoI request to all 43 police forces in England and Wales in early 2020, and 34 of the 43 —about three-quarters of the police forces in England and Wales—responded and disclosed that 119,934 NCHIs had been recorded in England and Wales in the five years from 2014 to 2019. By my calculation, that is an average of 65 a day—and remember, that that is just in England and Wales, and just three-quarters of the real total. There is no reason to think that the number being recorded every day by police forces in England and Wales has declined from that average of 65 since then, in the subsequent six years.

How long does it take the police? How many police hours are spent recording NCHIs? Policy Exchange published a report last November in which it concluded that the police spend 60,000 hours a year—again, that is just the police in England and Wales—investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents. If you factor in that they have been around since 2014, that means the police have spent at least 660,000 hours investigating and recording non-crimes since 2014.

What sort of incidents are we talking about? “Non-crime hate incident” sounds quite serious. I will give just a handful of examples. A man had an NCHI recorded against him after a neighbour complained that his whistling the theme tune to “Bob the Builder” was racist. A woman had an NCHI recorded against her name because she posted on X that she thought her cat was a Methodist. A nine year-old girl had an NCHI recorded against her because she called another girl in the school playground a “retard”. Two secondary school pupils had NCHIs recorded against them for saying about another girl, again in the school playground, that she smelled like fish. This is the kind of thing that the police have been spending 660,000 hours investigating and recording since 2014.

Incidentally, I know of at least one Member of this House who has had an NCHI recorded against her, and a Conservative Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, had an NCHI recorded against her because of a complaint made about the contents of her speech at a Conservative Party conference that she was addressed in her capacity as Home Secretary.

So it seems that it is not terribly difficult to make the argument that the police have been wasting a huge amount of time investigating and recording relatively trivial incidents. Again, I stress that the definition says that if it is merely “perceived”, not just by the “victim” but by any person, as being motivated by hostility or prejudice towards the “victim’s” protected characteristics, it can be recorded as an NCHI. Sometimes, when NCHIs are recorded, the person against whom the NCHI is recorded is not informed—so you might well have an NCHI recorded against you without knowing it.

All this sounds quite trivial, but having an NCHI recorded against your name can be quite serious, because chief constables, at their discretion, can disclose the fact that an NCHI has been recorded against a person when they apply for a job that requires them to do an enhanced DBS check. So, you can end up not getting a job as a teacher or a carer, or a voluntary position with a charity such as the Samaritans, because you have an NCHI recorded against your name.

I will just point out one more, I think unintended, consequence of the NCHI regime, which is that records are deleted after six years. So if you have an NCHI recorded against you at the age of 17, it remains on what is in effect your criminal record until you are 23, whereas quite serious criminal offences, if you are convicted, are spent when you reach the age of majority. The fact that you have committed a non-crime can hang about your neck like a bad smell long after you have reached the age of majority, even if it was recorded against you when you were a child. So, in some senses, not committing a crime and having that recorded against you can have more serious consequences than committing quite a serious crime and being convicted of it.

I believe that I am pushing at an open door. A report on NCHIs has been commissioned by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. They have published a provisional version of the report, in which they declare the NCHI regime unfit for purpose. I do not think that they have submitted the final report to the Home Secretary yet, but I know that, when they do, the Home Secretary is likely to take up the recommendations, and I think we will see the end of the NCHI regime.

I have four issues on which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance. The first is that, as I understand it, the new regime will be that incidents are no longer recorded as non-crime hate incidents; some cases will be recorded as anti-social behaviour incidents, but they will not be logged on the police national database. I ask for the Minister’s assurance that anti-social behaviour incidents that would have been recorded as NCHIs under the old regime will not, unlike NCHIs, be recorded on the police national database.

I also ask for the Minister’s assurance that, once the new regime is in place, previous NCHIs recorded under the old regime will be deleted and will not hang around for six years as they do currently, given that there is acceptance that the regime is not fit for purpose. If the regime is not fit for purpose, I hope the Minister can assure us that existing NCHIs—it is not inconceivable that they number in the hundreds of thousands—will be deleted. Finally, I seek reassurance that these anti-social behaviour incidents will not be disclosed in enhanced DBS checks.

I hope that the review by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be submitted and digested in time for the new regime to be put in place on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because we need to move on from the recording of non-crime hate incidents by removing them altogether from police systems.

Non-crime hate recording had an honourable start, following on from the Macpherson inquiry. There were two problems at the time. The first was that recordable crime was lower than it should have been because it was not being recorded accurately, due to misrecording and it sometimes not being recorded at all. This was linked to police performance being measured by the amount of crime in society. Therefore, the police service was incentivised to record less rather than more crime, thereby, ironically, undermining its own bid for more resourcing.

The murder of Stephen Lawrence showed us that, sometimes, before a crime is committed, there are signals that someone may be a racist, for example, and that, if we take the right action, we could prevent those crimes occurring and someone getting hurt or any other crime being committed. That system worked well at the start, because it allowed the police to collect intelligence and spot patterns—for example, by geography, suspect or victims. That relied on the basic repeat offender victim location theory, which shows that 10% of repeat offenders can account for over half of some crimes.

The problem is that the same system is now being used to police the social harms caused by causing offence. Causing offence is not a crime. The internet amplifies the problem—first, because it has a permanent record of the offensive but not criminal behaviour, and, secondly, because it allows millions of people, sometimes worldwide, to see the communication. For everybody involved, it is then very hard to ignore. This has led to some bizarre police interventions—the noble Lord, Lord Young, has already mentioned some—on issues that are not crimes or even non-crime hate. The public have juxtaposed these with significant complaints—such as shoplifting, car theft and other serious crimes—that, meanwhile, the police say they are too busy to deal with, even when a suspect is available to arrest. The two issues do not sit well together.

There is a need to record intelligence about incidents that may later become significant if crimes are committed. This can be on the police command and control log, where the incident can be given an anti-social behaviour coding, or on the criminal intelligence system. The problem arises if the name of a person who is said to have caused offence is recorded. In my view, if the police say that they will record what is being alleged because someone has called the control room and they need to log all calls—the police later denying that a call had come in would not be sensible—then it is necessary to record those incidents in the control room. However, if, on the face of what a person tells the police, they see no crime or incident, they will not investigate and will not record the name of the person the caller says has offended them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in the nicest possible way, that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer has given strict instructions to Government Ministers on Henry VIII clauses, and the various statutory instrument committees in this House and in the House of Commons have also expressed a grave view on them.

I put it to the Committee—and I hope that the Committee will accept this in good faith, as I am trying to do it in good faith—that the Government have recognised that there is a problem, and the Government have asked the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to examine that problem. The Government have received an interim report, which the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, referred to at Second Reading. The Government are awaiting the final report, which the noble Lord has said is coming shortly. I have not seen the final report. There may be things in it that maintain, change or revoke altogether the issues that have, quite rightly, been raised. But, if the Government had not realised that there was a problem, we would not have asked for solutions to be brought forward.

I know that I occasionally say, “Something will be happening very shortly”, but I say, in genuine help and support for the Committee, that we know that there is a problem. We want to change that problem, but we are trying to make sure that we get sufficiently robust professional advice to be able to make some political decisions based on the advice that we receive. With that, I have tried to help the noble Lord and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minster as he was getting towards the end of his speech. I have just one point: whatever advice the college gives, there will need to be a litmus test for whether the Government will support it. Whatever advice is given, I encourage the Government to make sure that it is clear, so that officers on the street understand it. If we end up with another series of 20 conditions, that will not simplify things. We must have a litmus test. For me, it might be, “If the officer acted in good faith and within the law as they believed it, we will support them”. I am not saying that that is the answer in this case, but it should be something simple.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support the excellent amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. Firearms officers provide a valuable and necessary service, and are an important part of UK policing. They do a very difficult and dangerous job and deserve our thanks. The current climate is not conducive to good policing and does not support our officers. This amendment is a positive one which will help them.

This is a topical amendment. Several days ago, the Independent Office for Police Conduct ruled on the case of Sean Fitzgerald being shot during a raid by West Midlands Police. He was holding a black mobile phone, which the officer who shot him believed was a gun.

This ruling was the conclusion of a long, complex investigation that included experts whose reconstruction corroborated the officer’s testimony that the phone could have been mistaken for a gun. The director of the IOPC said:

“The determination over whether the officer should face disciplinary proceedings largely came down to a split-second decision in what was a dynamic, fast-moving, armed police operation”.


This was a tragic accident, but it highlights the fact that firearms officers have to make very difficult, instantaneous decisions that can result in life or death. They have to quickly make a call on what is the safest option for themselves, their fellow officers and the public. In order for them to make the best judgments for themselves and for the public, they need to be confident that they will be supported in making that endeavour.

It is striking that in a piece in the Daily Telegraph, former firearms officer Sergeant Harry Tangye said that his and his fellow officers’ main fear was not being shot themselves; it was facing the investigation that would happen after they discharged their weapon while doing their job. The case of the shooting of Chris Kaba demonstrates this. In response to how the officer was treated, up to 300 Metropolitan Police officers stepped back from firearms roles, and the Army had to be put on standby to support the Met.

Firearms officers go through intensive training, including in how to respond in high-pressure situations. These are dedicated people with a strong desire to protect the public and serve their communities. Tangye said:

“But each time an AFO attends a scene, they face an uncomfortable truth: if I get this wrong I could be jailed. In my 30-year career I never once met an officer who wanted to ‘bag’ a scalp; no-one who hoped for the chance to use their gun to bring down a criminal. Most of us weren’t even keen on firearms at all. If you were a weapons enthusiast, you would be viewed with great suspicion by your force and probably removed”.


Authorised firearms officers, or AFOs, he said,

“shouldn’t have to do their jobs in fear of being jailed, or in fear of their careers, their lives, being ruined”.

The Police Federation also shares these concerns: that firearm officers,

“even when they follow the tactics and training they have received, will face significant struggles and hardships over what are usually split-second decisions taken by them in dangerous and fast-moving situations”.

Firearms officers need to be protected in primary legislation to make sure it is certain that they will be treated fairly when they have to make a very difficult decision. This amendment from the noble Lord is not a “get out of jail free” card; it still holds them to account for their actions. It means that officers who do their job properly, who make a decision that would be impossible for most people in this Chamber to comprehend, are protected under the law, and on that basis, I strongly support the amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 423A and will talk a little about the two other amendments.

In England and Wales, police firearms officers have intentionally discharged conventional weapons at people around 120 times over the last 20 years, between 2006 and 2026, so that is a discharge of a weapon at a person about six times a year. This figure represents less than 0.05% of all authorised firearms operations during that period.

In 2024-25—in just one year, the latest—there were 17,249 firearms operations. During that 20-year period, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the police shot dead on average around three people a year, each one a tragedy. There is no way that any officer should celebrate what happened, nor the families, of course, or all the people who are hurt by these terrible things. At the same time, the police injured a further two people a year.

This is not a trigger-happy group of people. They are the only people in this country who can go forward to deal with criminals or situations where a person is armed or similarly dangerous. They are a unique group of around 5,500 people in England and Wales who protect the population of 60 million of us and our visitors, and on our behalf they go forward.

They then expect, as I think we all do, that they will be held accountable. They do not expect immunity in the criminal or any court, but they do have a reasonable expectation that the system will understand the challenges they face, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned. In that fraction of a second, they have to make their decision on whether to shoot.

They suffer from the further challenge that they are only human beings with all our human strengths and frailties. Despite the fact that they are selected from still a reasonably large group of police officers who apply—not all who put themselves forward are selected—and then go through some rigorous training, at the end of the day they remain a human being, with all our frailties, fears and, at times, courage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I did not talk about criminal prosecutions at all.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I did not say that the noble Baroness did. My point is that after a public inquiry, where it was found that W80 had lawfully killed Jermaine Baker in 2015, and a series of further hearings that led eventually to the Supreme Court, W80 appeared before a gross misconduct hearing by an independent body—nothing to do with the police; it was ordered by the IOPC—and was found to have no case to answer. It was not found that there was an arguable case, or that there was mitigation. There was no case to answer, 10 years later. It had been through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and nobody had noticed that there was no case to answer.

One of the central problems in these cases is that they are rare. Every time an officer waits years to be cleared, there is an outcry asking why they were charged in the first place or why it took so long to resolve. Every Government affected by this has said, “We will review it, and improve”. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has just mentioned the latest example of that.

My broad point is that all the reviews in the world have produced absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed. I have given two examples but there are many more, where people have been waiting 10 years for something to be shown to be not a criminal offence. I am afraid that the reviews have not produced anything, which has led to me tabling this amendment.

The officers are under a triple jeopardy. First, the IOPC considers whether there is a criminal offence or an offence of misconduct. That can take around 18 months. If there is a claim of a criminal offence, that is considered by the CPS, which probably takes another year. In the event that there is a criminal charge, the officer will go to court. During this period, the inquest into the person’s death will have been suspended. If there has been no charge, the inquest, usually with a jury, will be resumed. Those juries can find, and have found, that there was an unlawful killing, which then must be reconsidered by the CPS, usually leading to a criminal charge to go through a criminal court and then back through the IOPC. It has been hard to establish the facts, but by my calculation there have been around five officers charged with murder following cases over the last 20 years, each leading to a finding of not guilty at a Crown Court. The people who seem to be able to appreciate this issue, and deal with it with some wisdom, are called jurors.

My amendment is designed to give some comfort to firearms officers that their case will have to reach a higher bar before a prosecution can be started. It is modelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has mentioned—he is the one who pointed this out to me—on the householder defence to murder that already exists in criminal law. If a householder is attacked in their home and, in the process of defending themselves, kills the intruder, there is a higher legal threshold to pass before a prosecution for murder can follow. All I am asking is for the same to apply to a firearms officer.

I have talked to the Attorney-General about this. He reminded me that lawyers generally have concerns about this because it creates a unique group, a group of people who are treated differently by the criminal law, but I have two points in response to that general principle. First, householders are already a unique group. The criminal law has decided that they are a unique group and that is okay, but that it would not be all right for police firearms officers, who—I argue—are also a unique group. Why can we not add one more group? This was decided by Parliament on the advice of lawyers. What is different about this group? More importantly, for the reasons that I have given, they are a unique group. They the only people in society who use a firearm to prevent a crime, save a life or make an arrest. We say that no one can carry a firearm for that purpose, even if they are a legal firearm owner.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I end with this. I know that it is late. All our firearms officers are volunteers. They cannot be ordered to carry a gun. Unlike in the USA, it is not a condition of service. We rely on their honour and willingness to come forward and take on these roles. There is evidence that this is not happening in the numbers we need. There are not many noble Lords in the Chamber, but I ask those who are here whether they would do it. Could they do it? Would they take that responsibility, facing the inevitable inquiries that would follow? It involves not only the officer but their family.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I know, but I have waited all day as well.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

If the noble Lord could conclude his remarks, that would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

There are just too many times when officers are faced with the challenge, which is unfair. The solution I propose is that we should treat firearms officers fairly and differently. I am not a lawyer. The Government may be able to come up with a better proposal, but the position that we have at the moment is untenable and something that I am not prepared to let rest. I ask for support from the Government in some respect.

My final point is that I support, to some extent, the proposal of the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Jackson. My concern is that it might lead to more people being charged more often, and I am arguing that they should be charged less often for doing their job.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me, if I can beg your indulgence. In order for there not to be any confusion, I neglected to advise the Committee that my brother is a serving Metropolitan Police officer. I should have mentioned that earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, I listened with sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on his amendment—

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

This is one of my major objections to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposes. Can the noble Lord explain to me why a firearms officer would feel more supported by a discretionary life sentence, which is what would be available for the charge of manslaughter, compared with a mandatory sentence of life for murder? I am not sure I would.